Talk:Alt-right

Bias

This article is blatantly biased against those on the Alt-Right, especially in regards to the claims of racism. We all know these kind of generalizations would never fly on any other type of article, so why is it allowed on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwharllee (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The claims, however ridiculous, are sourced. Wikipedia is known to have a liberal bias, but there's no use just complaining about a problem, start editing and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Zaostao (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be easier to edit if the biased article wasn't locked until after the presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfadude (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From the very paragraph you linked to: "There are no data or surveys to back that." Just thought you should know what you're citing. Rockypedia (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to respect the opinion of Jimmy Wales, although maybe you think he doesn't know what he's talking about and that he's not aware of the state of wikipedia—which would be quite a strange opinion for you to hold, but not one for me to comment on. Zaostao (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the one who said "There are no data or surveys to back that." I tend to respect high levels of reading comprehension. It would be strange if you didn't, but that's not for me to comment on. Rockypedia (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

See "opinion of Jimmy Wales". Your respect for high levels of reading comprehension doesn't seem translate into application, but I suppose we can admire high standards while not adhering to them ourselves. Zaostao (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop talking in riddles and actually say what you mean for once. A real man would do that. Jimmy Wales is the one who said "There are no data or surveys to back" the opinion that Wikipedia is slightly more liberal than the average American, because Wikipedia is a worldwide site and the rest of the world leans a little more liberal than the average American. That's very different from what you said, which was "wikipedia has a liberal bias" - You're clearly far to the right of the average American, based on how you've been blocked for your POV edits attempting to make white supremacists appear more palatable. The closest you've ever come to admitting your bias was your claim that "Wikipedia is known to have a liberal bias" while citing a link that says a similar thing, but is in fact quite different in substance. It's the same thing you do all the time - try to find something that's close to what you need in order to push your right-wing POV. It's too bad you won't just own it and state your real intentions. Not surprising, considering the way you've tried to sneak around 3RR multiple times in your edit-warring. Rockypedia (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A conservative bias would be as harmful as a liberal bias. I'm simply trying to improve the encyclopedia. Anyway, this tangent you've created has descended to pig in the mud levels, which isn't very kosher, so i'm not going to reply to this again and you can have the last word if you want. Zaostao (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Could the page (if expanded instead of repeatedly shortened) included sections such as "Criticism from the right" and "Criticism from the left"? I think that could solve the problem pretty well. User:JosephFrontroyal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism sections should be avoided if possible, per WP:CSECTION. Additionally, separating the section into two categories would be false balance, would require us to make subjective judgments about where sources fall, and would imply that criticism has only come from politically aligned sources, all of which are problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The page already has criticism sections (just not named "criticism"). Most problems with false balance can be avoided by only used sources which are forthright about their argument, weather for, against the movement. Milo's manifesto in Brietbart, for example, could be included in a alt-right general belief's section while National Review's "Moral Rot" piece would obvious be put under the "criticism" section, and if need be under the sub-section "criticism from the right."

The issue could be cleared up if the page weren't insistently re-shortened. The "Beliefs" section has been shorted many times while the "Origins" section has been removed as many times. Someone should expand the page and expand/clarify where necessary. Cutting and re-cutting doesn't help anyone.

I can upload a general first draft of both if need be. The "origins" section is ready now. User:JosephFrontroyal (talk)

There's an error in the beginning of this article that states that alt-righters are 'opposed' to immigration. Actually, the overwhelming majority of alt-righters aren't opposed to immigration at all; rather, they support it in a selective and limited style. Numerous figureheads of the movement such as John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow have confirmed this. I'm sure this mistake won't be rectified because it jibes with some sort of narrative, which, of course, is much more important than factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.33.111 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That "error" is supported by reliable sources. If you have sources that back up your statement, please provide them. clpo13_(talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The "realiable source" is an opinion column titled "Donald Trump’s hate for political correctness is comfort food to racists", sounds pretty biased to me. That source is as reliable as me writing a blog post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.159.101 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016‎

Cathy Young is a controversial but noted columnist who's opinion is being cited as an opinion, and that's source isn't used in the lead. The statement in the lead is supported by sources from CNN and Financial Times, and there are plenty more where that came from. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

First line on origins: "Origins According to economist Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education, "The movement inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought........"

Pretty clearly unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.32.233 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This description of the "Alt-Right" is on the border of being slanderous. This notion of associating any conservative movements with white-supremacy and hate groups clearly indicates a very prejudice and hostile takeover of this webpage to push a certain political narrative. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform the reader and to spread information for all to see, not to push your own highly delusional interpretation(s) of the information given. The Soothsayer (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As said over 9000 times already, find some sources and suggest changes. Reliable sources by and large describe the alt-right as nationalist and white supremacist. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What EvergreenFir said. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed "Origins" section

The page has a "entomology" and a basic "beliefs" section, but both, I think, lack when it comes to a more detailed explanation of both. I think a section which describes the movement's origins can help add to both. Here's a draft below:

The intellectual roots of the alt-right vary widely, ranging from philosophers Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola to thinkers such as H.L. Mencken, Patrick J. Buchanan and Samuel T. Francis. The origins of the alt-right, as outlined by journalists Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos and others, are largely in Old Right of the United States as well as in various New Right movements of Europe.

The intellectual roots of the alt-Right movement very widely, ranging from Oswald Spengler of Germany and Julius Evola of Italy to American thinkers such as libertarian columnist H.L. Mencken and paleoconservatives such as Patrick J. Buchanan and Samuel T. Francis. Jeet Heer of The New Republic identified the alt-right as having ideological origins among paleoconservatives, particularly with respect to its general positions restricting immigration and foreign policy. According to anarchist theorist Jeffery Tucker, other influential thinkers among the alt-right include Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Carlyle, and Giovanni Gentile.

===The Old Right and the Nouvelle Droite===

According to conservative journalists Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the origins of the alt-right movement are largely in Old Right of the United States as well as in various New Right movements of Europe. In addition to paleoconservatives who supports Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 bid for the Republican presidential nomination after splitting from the neoconservative wing of American conservatism after the Cold War, other early members of what would become the alt-right movement also included thinkers who were largely inspired by the theories of European New Right, itself with its origins on the Nouvelle Droite (“New Right”) of France.

===American Renaissance===

At various conferences hosted by American Renaissance throughout the 1990s, a magazine founded in 1990 by self-described identitarian Jared Taylor, many figures of the Old Right such as Joseph Sobran, Paul Gottfried, Lawrence Auster, and Samuel T. Francis. Together with other identitarians such as Richard B. Spencer, Guillaume Faye, Alex Kurtagic, as well as Jared Taylor, American Renaissance acted as an early forum for the alt-right. Later forums included Taki’s Magazine, AlternativeRight.com, the Unz Review, and VDARE.com, which conservative journalists Milo Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari described as “an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another.”

===Anarchism, libertarianism, and white nationalism===

The alt-right has been influenced not only by paleoconservativism and identitarianism but by anarchism and libertarianism. Significant overlap exists between individuals who have spoken at evens hosted by American Renaissance, the H. L. Mencken Club, the National Policy Institute, and the Property and Freedom Society. Of the four groups, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, Robert Weissberg, and Tomislav Sunić have spoken at two, Jared Taylor and Paul Gottfried have spoken at three, and Richard Spencer has spoken at all four. In addition to New Right-inspired identiarians, the intellectual origins of the alt-right also include anarchist theorists such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Please suggest whatever parts of it where additions/clarifications can be made. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephFrontroyal (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

An origins section would be good, but you'd need to build it on sources like this WaPo one, not on just the Milo and Bokhari Breitbart piece and some assorted alt-right-ish sources. Zaostao (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought an overview of the alt-right from alt-right-ish sources might be a good start and then retorts from non-alt-right sources - I tried to include Heer, Tucker, and Lowry too -- could go in the "Criticism from the Right" and "Criticism from the Left" sections.

Do you have any suggestions for clarification/expansion? If so, I can re-write the draft into something more acceptable. Thanks for the input Zaostao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephFrontroyal (talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, using retorts would almost certainly create false balance. Grouping ideologically similar source would be a judgement call, and would not be appropriate for a 'origins' section, for reasons explained at WP:CSECTION. Few of those sources are usable for the proposed content, either. Opinions about the 'roots' of the alt-right should not be presented as facts. Breitbart, Radix, and American Renaissance are all unreliable, so they should rarely be used, and never for statements of fact. Any opinions cited from them should be in direct response to something supported by a reliable source. Otherwise, there's a high risk of cherry-picking to support fringe theories or statements. Giving a platform for obscure sources to promote their specific interpretation of the movement is not neutral. The Yiannopoulos/Bokhari source has been discussed to death before, but there are many other sources specifically refuting or challenging it, from multiple political perspectives, so it cannot be used like this. Additionally, much of this is original research. "Significant overlap" should directly be established by a source, for one. A youtube playlist is totally insufficient, here. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Giving a platform for obscure sources to promote their specific interpretation of the movement is not neutral." If presented as the point of view of a source, and that source's relevance to the article can be established (such as American Renaissances' relevance to the alt-right), how the movement's component see themselves still contributes to the page overall. As I said before, there would presumably by two "Criticism" sections which can be hashed out later.

Other suggestions, "Origins" section draft re-writes? JosephFrontroyal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You've made many changes to the sources in your draft since my first comments, which should be noted, otherwise it misrepresents my response. Many of those changes introduce sourcing problems, also. The MediaMatters source, for example, doesn't mention the New Right while the majority of what it does mention hasn't been included at all. This suggests to me that you looked for sources that would support what you'd already written, which isn't going to work here. Content should reflect the sources, and if this was written based on original research or disputed sources, then substituting better sources without adjusting content is worse than nothing, since it implying that the sources support something they do not.

Your proposal only sometimes presents the points of view of the sources as such. Many of these statements are taken at face value as facts. "The intellectual roots of the alt-Right movement very widely..." for example. How widely? According to who? I don't see this as being 'wide' in a meaningful sense, so this seems subjective. Some of these influences are also vague, and seem like name-dropping. This needs context, otherwise it's not really informative. For dead people, the 'lineage' has to be either traced by a reliable source, or cautiously presented as an opinion. For example, mentioning Mencken (which also is not supported by the attached source) gives a degree of heft to the movement without offering very much information. Substituting Plato would be just as true and say just as little, wouldn't it? Modern proponents tend to stick to a walled-garden of pseudo-academic fringe websites and podcasts, but we need to explain that before just listing them, otherwise it's still WP:FRINGE, as well as being empty flattery.

The entire "overlap" section should go unless there is a reliable, independent source making that observation in regard to the alt-right. Otherwise it's WP:OR. Citing event listings to claim a commonality is WP:SYNTH. There is overlap, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to make that conclusion for multiple reasons.

Having two criticism sections doesn't really solve the problem. Determining the left-right ideology of each critic is not always simple and is usually subjective, and the political position of the critic doesn't automatically reflect on the substance or quality of their criticism. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, Grayfell, an overview of the alt-right from alt-right sources would be a good start -- one immediately to be followed by retorts from non-alt-right sources such as Heer, Tucker, and Lowry. They would go in "Criticism from the Right" and "Criticism from the Left" sections. Your critiques would be better spent drafting those three sections.

The fact that a better source was found after a first draft was written is irrelevant.

Do please try to suggest a better draft. This is where that's supposed to happen. Hair-splitting over who's biased towards what really adds nothing. Like I said, the various biases will go on in their respective sections -- "Origins," to largely show the alt-right's view of itself, as well as "Criticism from the Right" and "Criticism from the Left."

I look forward to seeing another draft presented. JosephFrontroyal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to explain why the premise of your proposal is flawed. I don't think an overview of the alt-right from alt-right sources is a good start. Too many of those sources are unreliable, many are contradictory, and figuring out which qualify as being alt-right and which don't would require independent sources anyway. Wikipedia strongly favors independent and secondary sources for many reasons. I don't think retorts are a good idea, and I don't think having two 'opposed' criticism sections is neutral or appropriate. I don't trust you, or myself, or any other editor to determine which sources are right and which are left, and even making that distinction at all seems like a bad, bad idea. What would that accomplish other than suggesting false balance? We should contextualize sources, but lumping them into two opposed categories is needlessly polarizing. It's inviting readers to pick their pony based on our own subjective opinions, rather than letting them assess the criticisms on their own merits. Since the underlying approach seems unworkable for multiple reasons, I see no point in proposing a better draft. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Reply to Grayfell,

Wikipedia already has pages which contrasts different schools of one movement, such as the Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism page, and already cites unreliable sources themselves for information specifically on those sources, such as the National Policy Institute and [[American Renaissance.

I see no reason why supposedly false-opposite sources cannot be assembled in a format similar to the Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism page nor why sources, reliable or not but defiantly original, cannot be used if only to provide one point of few on the subject vis-à-vis National Policy Institute and [[American Renaissance.

If you don't want to suggest another draft, alright. Do try to contribute rather than prevent am expanded page instead of keeping the terse, simplified, and comparatively uninformative page currently posted. I'm still looking forward to future drafts -- and to constructive criticism as to how those drafts may be improved.

JosephFrontroyal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot at least acknowledge the substance of what I've been saying, I don't think any criticism will be interpreted as constructive. Anyway, constructive criticism is obligatory for personal projects, but this is not a personal project, this is a collaborative one. Your proposals damage the article, and I see no valid reason to pretend otherwise. What you are suggesting would undermine the work others have put into the article. There are far too many sourcing, editorializing, and redundancy problems with your proposals. Many of the sources you added did not actually support the attached content. Much of what you wrote was redundant and verbose. Additionally, your wording presented opinions as facts and cited blatantly unreliable sources. Etc. Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism is a bad example for comparison. For one thing WP:OTHERSTUFF, but for another, it's an article specifically about two ideologies which are specifically characterized by many reliable sources as being in opposition to each other. Additionally, that article has its own problems, and has been tagged since 2008, making it a poor goal to shoot for. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is a thing?

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it anything more than Newspeak invented by the Clinton campaign? 71.173.17.224 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I suggest you read the article, especially the section Etymology, where usage by various conservative groups and people is noted. clpo13(talk) 16:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC) this sounds like a manufactured self identity. like pink-mafia https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&tbm=isch&sa=1&btnG=Search&q=pink-mafia or pink-nazi https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&tbm=isch&sa=1&btnG=Search&q=pink+nazi no one actually ever called themselves this term. it's creation is not unlike racism, complete with: prejudice, designations, and sterotypification. this entire topic is wp:synth or just plain projection. 107.77.206.155 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Antifeminism

The alt-right's antifeminism and support of patriarchy and traditional gender roles should be mentioned. "The so-called online “manosphere,” the nemeses of left-wing feminism, quickly became one of the alt-right’s most distinctive constituencies."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congruent snackbar (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I bet there are reliable sources discussing this point, and likely some already used in the article, but Breitbart isn't one of them. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, most sources about the alt-right will be primary sources. It's the same problem that arises with the manosphere. If the mainstream media and academia don't want to cover something, then Wikipedia will tend not to cover it either. Therefore, if you're in the MSM or academia, then for purposes of getting a movement (or an aspect of a movement) ignored by Wikipedia, it's better to ignore it than to criticize it. Congruent snackbar (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See the already linked neoreactionary movement. Zaostao (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prominent figures

The two subsections on philosophers in the prominent figures section are entirely unsourced (with the exception of one dead link, lists a number of people who are not philosophers (Vox Day, really?) and provides no context for their inclusion. Is Hegel listed because Gottfied's The Search for Historical Meaning: Hegel and the Postwar American Right supposedly influenced the alt-right? The section needs clean-up and context. As it is, it cannot stand and ought to be removed. Mduvekot (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a mess of WP:OR, so I removed it. Also, the content should be presented, if at all, with context and attribution, making a bland list inappropriate. The image of Thomas Carlyle was especially odd, since the article doesn't explain how he's connected, but he died over a hundred years before the movement formed. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

I would like to include source from the Michigan Review on Wikipedia's description of the alt-right. I would like to use the cited source from the Review to support the claims that the alt-right endorses natvism and that it spawned on websites like 4chan. Thanks http://www.michiganreview.com/demystifying-alt-right/

The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism,[1][2][6] white supremacism,[3][7][8] antisemitism,[1][2][9] right-wing populism,[6] nativism,[10] and the neoreactionary movement.[7][11]

The alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement with Internet memes widely used to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan.[7][9][12]

Kl793 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an improvement. Opinion pieces are not ideal for statements of fact. Being a college paper doesn't help, either. The Michigan Review may be usable in some situations, but to avoid WP:CITECLUTTER this probably isn't necessary here. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

More bias resolution

In an effort to reduce the amount of bias on this article, I've changed up the sections some. Beliefs are now in the Beliefs section and opinionated criticisms are now in the Criticisms (previously Reactions) section. Part of the issue with bias in this article is that it is sourced almost exclusively by opinion pieces (as opposed to strictly fact-based articles) from critics (and not supporters). If most of the sources are biased, of course the article is going to be biased. Vektor00 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As has already been discussed here at length, criticism should not be confined to one section, as that is less neutral. Removing unflattering comments as you did only increases bias. The lead is intended to be a summary of the body, so some redundancy is expected. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION says that a criticism section "may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." It only discourages, not prohibits, a Criticism section. This is within guidelines.

The article currently implies that not only are those on the alt-right white supremacists and etc., but also will admit to and be proud of it. You cannot honestly tell me that is less biased. The very fact that there are so many claims of bias on this article should be enough evidence that it is too biased in its current state. Vektor00 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vektor00: Be that as it may, please avoid reverting to your preferred version when someone has disputed your changes (see WP:BRD). Wikipedia operates more on consensus among editors than strict policy. clpo13_(talk) 21:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Apologies. Vektor00 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

While I believe having a criticism section is well within policy, I believe instituting one in this article reduces the quality and informativeness of it. It reads much better to see the 'bad' along with the 'good' as you are reading through an article, and it makes more sense to me to mention these things as they come up rather than saving them all up for a separate area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that there is very little "good" in this article to balance out the "bad." The term "alt-right" is used almost exclusively pejoratively. There are only two ways to avoid bias: have separate sections, or have one section with equal parts positive and negative. Since we do not have have enough positive to balance out the negative, I've recommended separate sections, at least for now. Vektor00 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We should not be worrying about 'balancing out' negative parts- we should simply follow the reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:RSOPINION, the majority of the sources used are opinions and therefore not reliable as subject matter sources. It is not clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Vektor00 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not what WP:RSOPINION says. What sources are being used for statements of fact that you believe should not be? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, was this article written by Hilary Clinton's people or something? If any of you care to bother looking up "what is alt right" in Google trends you'll see quite clearly that everyone googled this after hilary used the term. Real problem huh? This should be covered, there IS NO alt right. It's a made up term from Hilary Clinton. There's a large group a people who feel this way. Please talk about it. Wiki is not Hill dog property ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Everything in the article that predates Clinton's speech was just made up. The term certainly wasn't used as far back as 2008 or anything. Seriously though, there was a spike in searches for the term after Clinton used it on August 25 (you can even see a spike in this page's views: [2]), but the term has been used by various groups (both conservative and liberal) long before that. clpo13_(talk) 23:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Most of the current article was written before Hillary's speech. We added several new sources after that, since the term got a lot more coverage afterwards (which is hardly surprising when a major party's presidential candidate gives a speech about it), but for the most part that coverage was in line with what was written about it before, so it didn't really lead to much of a change in the article's content. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Vector's suggestions for the article. TweedVest (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

8chan

I previously added information about 8chan and the alt right and it was removed. Benjamin (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Memes: Pepe the Frog

Please don't remove the material on the meme from this article, it is fairly short, while it is true it likely should not dominate the Pepe article, they removed a bit too much of it there. I had one problem I could find a good source for the Kek meme, people are posting "Praise Kek" all over the internet, and I had no idea what it meant. It should be explained. Doktor Faustus (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There's way too much weight given to a cartoon frog and some of the sources aren't usable. Zaostao (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I found better sources, but I'm not sure it's worth mentioning at all. The "praise Kek" bit in particular seems unrelated to its use in alt-right circles (as the WaPo piece notes, it has been used for a variety of things at different times.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog had already made it in mainstream media reports well before the Clinton website posted about it, See "All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript, 7/7/2016" [3] and "How Pepe the Frog Became a Nazi Trump Supporter and Alt-Right Symbol" [4] I will agree that the examples (while useful) can be left out, but the person yelling "pepe" during Clinton's alt-right speech noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktor Faustus (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree that the person who yelled "pepe" is newsworthy. Independent Journal Review is a fairly opinionated source (they're intended to be basically a right-leaning version of BuzzFeed and RedState); we would need more coverage from a mainstream source to mention it, given its extremely low profile as an event. Compare to the coverage of how the media attention was a response to Hillary mentioning it, which is overwhelming, heavy, and goes across several mainstream sources - all of which extensively document how the meme reached its current level of discussion, and none of which seem to mention the yell. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Current text, short and without using any sources objected to earlier. Doktor Faustus (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Pepe the Frog memes are also popular leading references to "Nazi Frogs" in the media and internet, which attracted more media attention after "Pepe" was yelled at Hillary Clinton's Alt-right speech and it was criticized by her campaign."

This article is full of disinformation

The alt right is not a racist or white nationalist group. It is a group of people who reject views that the traditional neocon right wing holds. Anyone of any race can be alt right you just have to reject the standard leftist narrative that both parties push. How can you list mainstream media as a reliable source when they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about. The alt right is about rejecting globalism and leftist dogma, the left has only pushed the narrative that it is a racist movement because they want everyone who isn't white to believe they are a victim so they may further push globalism. I repeat people of any race can be a member of the alt right there is no racial agenda it is for anyone who loves their country and holds right wing views that aren't in line with the current neocon hijacking of the right wing. Seriously get your shit together and stop getting your information from buzzfeed and other mainstream biased trash.

142.241.254.68 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR: "Anyone I disagree with is wrong and unreliable." See WP:The Truth. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the article never definitively states the alt-right is racist or white nationalist, since it's a loose collection of people and not a monolithic group with solidly defined beliefs. It's been associated with such ideologies, however, whether you want to admit it or not. Even Breitbart acknowledges that: [5], specifically the section about "1488rs"). clpo13_(talk) 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So why are all the sources mentioning it's ties to "anti-Semitism", "white nationalism" are all from Soros funded leftist media. People, CNN and the New York times are all bought and paid for by the same investors. How can you be so ready to cite them as reliable sources, they are bought and paid for and have an agenda. They don't report facts they tell stories. Traditional mainstream media is a bunch of old people afraid of losing their jobs because their industry is going down the toilet and they are fighting so hard to remain relevant at all even if it means making up blatant lies. The movement is about rejecting what are seen as traditionally right wing values and nothing more. There is no hidden Nazi agenda despite how bad you want to believe your Clinton News Network.

142.241.254.68 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Clinton News Network", "Soros funded". Man, it's blatantly obvious what agenda you're pursuing. If you have something worthwhile to say about improving the article, say it. If you're just here to bitch about mainstream media, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for you. clpo13_(talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really follow right wing news either just go to the top of all media and see where the money comes from. This isn't right wing conspiracy theory it's observable fact. The mainstream media is in its death throes and to even begin to think they have any credibility left is naïve. The media is afraid of losing their jobs because they are irrelevant and you want to cite them as credible sources. The are so out of touch with reality nobody trusts them anymore so why should Wikipedia. Edit: Just look at them talk about memes it's embarrassing. Pepe the frog a white nationalist. A bunch of senior citizens all out of touch with what is really going on.

142.241.254.68 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Too much name calling and not enough information in this article, more primary source material would be helpful. The article on Paleoconservatism would be a good model to use for a re-write Doktor Faustus (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources, especially for controversial content. Primary sources must still be reliable, also. If reliable sources are describing the alt-right in unflattering terms, so be it. If the problem is the name calling itself, Wikipedia articles shouldn't use euphemisms. (Wouldn't that just match the alt-right's definition of "political correctness"?) Since paleoconservatism has a much longer history and much greater depth of sources, mentioning that article as a model while providing no other comparisons offers no usable information on how to actually improving this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter whether mainstream media are biased or wrong. Wipedia policy is that articles will be based on that type of source. If you do not like its policies then get them changed. There are wiki encyclopedias, such as Conservapedia, that have different policies on sourcing and balance and provide a different narrative. TFD (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Kek worship

The alt-right seems increasingly to be characterized by worship of the ancient Egyptian frog-god Kek, with Pepe seen as a representation of him. This piece from an alt-right website is an example, but I haven't yet found any mainstream sources discussing the Kek phenomenon, although I suspect it's only a matter of time. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

its obviously a joke and the people who wrote it are so hoping someone takes it seriously. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Commentary

The following could be included in the Commentary:
According to Eric Hananoki writing for Media Matters for America the Trump Campaign accepted donations from White Nationalist Leaders, e.g. Michael Polignano, webmaster for Counter-Currents, and Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE, both virulently racist publications.

References

~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.4.66.210 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes

This article transcludes navboxes Template:Conservatism sidebar, Template:Nationalism sidebar, and Template:White nationalism, none of which link back to this article. According to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

These navboxes should either be removed from this article, or a link to this article should be added to the ones that are kept. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here! This is about your removal of navboxes in these difs with the sole justification in the edit note being WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I reverted here, as BIDIRECTIONAL doesn't speak to whether the navbox should be on a given page or not.

With regard to the notion that the article should be in the navbox, that is easily fixed, as I did here, here, and here. Now what is the reason for not using each of those navboxes in this article? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is resolved, as far as I'm concerned. When article and navbox content disagrees, one always has to assume that either of them is wrong. I tend to assume it's the article, because articles are more volatile and less centralized by nature. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

great. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

White Nationalism primary source

While doing some research for another article I found the most popular alt-right podcast, Fash The Nation (part of what RS call alt-right media hub The Right Stuff. FTN and the other publications in its immediate family are seen by many as the definitive word on the alt-right. This week, in Week 58: Alt-Right vs. Alt-Wrong [6] there was an entire segment specifically about what the alt-right is. Of particular interest is this statement by host Jazzhands McFeels at 1:15 "One of the things I want to point out very clearly is that we are white nationalists. Period. And without white nationalism the alt-right is nothing...this is extremely important. We're not going to walk back from these principles." There's more discussion for nearly an hour reinforcing that, and previous episodes of FTN and its sister podcast, The Daily Shoah, have also reflected this viewpoint. Of course basing something this controversial on primary sources is very shaky, but we already have secondary sources saying that they are white nationalists and white supremacists. Combined with an explicit statement and even embrace of that label by one of the major alt-right leaders, that would seem to be enough to cross the threshold. Even if not enough to label the entirety of the alt-right in Wikipedia's voice, that primary source from TRS combined with the Guardian article which calls TRS "a major hub for the dissemination of alt-right materials" should be enough to attribute the opinion to McFeels. I could probably find more examples of this kind of statement, but listening to a dozen hours of podcasts and reading white supremacist blog posts for hours isn't exactly appealing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The same is true for The Daily Stormer and its editor Andrew Anglin: "Kikeservative Milo Attacks Daily Stormer and Fash the Nation, Says Alt-Right is Only 2-5% of the Alt-Right". You could read the article but it's more of the same of what's in the title and reaffirms statements made on FTN.

@The Wordsmith: What type of change would you be proposing though? Zaostao (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: Thanks, I hadn't seen that. The Stormer is a little too much for me to subject myself to. As to what I'm proposing, it would be best in the Beliefs section. Something along the lines of "While the label of white nationalism is disputed by some political commentators including Milo Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari, prominent alt-right leaders such as Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer and Jazzhands McFeels of Fash The Nation have embraced the term as the core philosophy their movement is based on." Obviously the wording needs some polishing, but it might end the constant talkpage arguments and low-level edit warring over the WN label. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: That would be fine, as alt-right is essentially just a rebranding of white nationalism by the looks of it, although giving prominence to one thing will probably cause lots of 'nuh-uh x, y or z is the main thing'—which was sort of seen earlier by the tag team edit warring to reinsert "antifeminism" without any discussion on the talk page. Zaostao (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: That's exactly what I'm trying to avert here. If we have both their major leaders and their major critics using the same label to describe them, there really isn't much room to argue that they're not. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Oh, okay, in that case would a wording such as "The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources and alt-right figures have stated white nationalism to be fundamental to the movement. It has also been associated with white supremacism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism and the neoreactionary movement." in the lede with the detail about Yiannopoulos and other Breitbart types commenting in the beliefs section? Zaostao (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"formal" or "organized" would be better than "official" as for there to even be an expectation of something being "official" there needs to be an office - an organization - to issue it. The list does not include "anti-feminist" or MRA, and needs to, based on the preponderance of reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Though I question if we need both White Nationalist and White Supremacist, they're basically the same thing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Okay, so "The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources and alt-right figures have stated white nationalism to be fundamental to the movement. It has also been associated with antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism, (whatever else), and the neoreactionary movement"? Would you be going ahead and making this change or are you unable to because of INVOLVED? Zaostao (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia-running trolls part of the Donald Trump-supporting alt-right?

I'm curious to know whether the trolls running Wikipedia, as Larry Sanger says last November are part of the alt-right, which is supporting the Republican nominee Donald Trump, especially with the hiring of the Breitbart News staffmember Stephen K. Bannon as campaign manager. For example, BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs) is part of the alt-right, given the fact he makes statements that suggest a kinship with Trump, and by extension, his friend, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Is it possible to add the mention of "Wikipedia" into it, and the word "alt-right" to be included in Criticism of Wikipedia? 2001:E68:542D:19FB:F8E4:9753:F327:F2E3 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources. I suspect, however, that you do not have reliable sources for that claim. Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, beware of assigning political views to specific editors. Chances are you are wrong, but even if you're right, it has no place on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• That source doesn't mention the alt-right at all (which isn't surprising given its date, which is way before the term became common.) We'd need sources specifically mentioning the Alt-Right and Wikipedia to go anywhere with that, ideally high-quality ones. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

List of isms in the lead

Zaostao, you've tried to remove antifeminism and anti-Islamism a few times now ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Please stop edit warring and discuss this. The sources clearly support the inclusion of both. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There already is a discussion above. islam mention is about Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders attending the RNC, not about the "alt-right", unless you're going off the title, in which case "homosexuality" is an ideology of the alt-right as well. Zaostao (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

don't see where islam/zeller are discussed above. The Nation article makes it clear in its loose coalition alt-right includes anti-islam, and enthusiastically. added an additional ref as well. Because alt-right is so loose you have almost no leg to exclude any of these elements. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

the nation article doesn't state geller or wilders are "alt-right" and it only mentions islam when speaking of them. anyway, i was referencing the section titled antifeminism. and there's basic commonsense which would suggest you'd try to avoid terms which are redundant—in the lede at the very least, like anti-capitalist socialist or anti-feminist traditionalist/reactionary. Zaostao (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said that the nation article states that geller or wilders are alt-right. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the source didn't support the material? If so, why did you revert? Zaostao (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I said it does support - please slow down and read what i wrote two comments ago. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And I responded by pointing out it only mentions Islam when talking about Geller and Wilders, it doesn't actually link alt-right to it. It's helpful to read beyond the headline, although with the nation, maybe not. Zaostao (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

read the whole article. added quotes from it to the ref, as a matter of fact. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• it mentions both islam and alt-right in the same article, but not in the same sentence at any point other than the headline—just as it does with gays, yet "homosexuality" isn't taken as an association. anyway, there probably are sources that actually support the material, but being deliberately obtuse is easier than trying to improve an encyclopedia, I suppose. Zaostao (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)